Graham Stringer: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong on that. However, I am sure that we will come back to that point in Committee.
	These bikes are responsible for one death a month. Just over a fortnight ago, a young man in Greater Manchester—in Oldham, I think—was mown down by one of the machines and was dead on arrival at hospital. The problem is not diminishing; if anything, it is intensifying.

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend referred to the way in which these bikes ruin our natural environment. He will be familiar with the Medlock valley, which is in our city of Manchester, and the complaints that those who ride these bikes recklessly are making that reclaimed natural beauty spot a place that is no longer safe for those who want to use it. That is exactly why my constituents, like his, want these bikes to be properly regulated and kept off such areas of natural beauty.

Graham Stringer: I agree with my hon. Friend's point completely. Such bikes are a danger to the public and a nuisance, but in many ways the people most at risk are the riders. Tameside metropolitan borough council recently launched an attack on the bikes. It took a number in, and its trading standards section looked at them. It found that none was compliant with the British Standards Institution's specification, BS 7407, and that the bikes were extremely dangerous. As we are pushed for time, I will not detain Members by reading out the 10 ways in which Tameside found the bikes to be dangerous, but the bikes are extremely dangerous to the rider. The fuel tanks are not safe and the chains on the machines can take people's legs off. They fall apart, because they are not made properly.
	Before I come to the details of the Bill, I ask why our communities should be held to ransom by such bikes. When Ministers, particularly Home Office Ministers, say that crime is falling, the claim is met with scepticism not just by Opposition Members but by the public. That is not because of the statistics that Ministers give, but because people who are surrounded by an environment of noise, threat and antagonism simply do not believe that their lives are getting better, and that the Government, local authorities and police authorities are doing what they should to protect communities. That is the top and bottom of the matter.

Graham Stringer: I will indeed, when I come to describe the two major parts of the Bill. The Bill will certainly help with enforcement, as well as deal with the problem.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is kind in giving way again. He has not yet mentioned the issue of educating parents who buy mini-motos for their youngsters. Does he agree that one benefit that may result from his Bill is that it may make parents realise what they are buying? As he has made clear, for a variety of reasons the bikes are often death traps for the young people who use them. Does he agree that the Bill may lead to better education for parents who buy the machines?

Graham Stringer: Again, my hon. Friend makes a point that I shall make. Many parents buy the machines believing that they are toys, but they are not; they are dangerous machines that can travel at up to 60 mph. Having to register as keepers and having to register the machine would be part of that education, as it would make it clear that the bikes are not toys.
	The Bill is not a complete solution, but it would amend the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 so that the current system of registration for vehicles on the road were extended to off-road vehicles. It is not a licensing scheme; a licensing scheme is, in effect, a road tax, but the machines that we are talking about are not meant to go on the road. The Bill would amend the 1994 Act so that the machine and its keeper were required to be registered at the time of sale. In a sense, the Bill is retrospective, because it would also oblige current users to register at some time, and, as I said, there are between 100,000 and 200,000 such machines in circulation. That time can be defined in regulations. Clearly, there would have to be an amnesty before that obligation were implemented.
	Registration would require the manufacturers to put registration marks on the machines. Some of those marks would be recognisable to the public, but others would be secret—similarly, we cannot find all the registration marks on our cars—and the regulations would require both kinds. My hon. Friend the Minister may say that that is not covered by the Bill, but it could be covered by changing the relevant regulations. There are many powers in the 1994 Act that could be used to cover registration. A moot point is whether there should be a registration plate, as there are arguments for and against that. I have not come to a final decision—on balance, I think that it is helpful to have a registration plate—but the matter could be debated in Committee. Clause 2 amends section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, and effectively gives police officers the right, if they have due cause, to stop a bike without warning and if it does not comply with registration measures—I know that this will raise a cheer—take it away and squash it. Most hon. Members are in favour of squashing those machines when possible.
	It is worth going through the arguments that have been made against the Bill by the Government and the Association of Chief Police Officers, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) referred. The Government's position, which is made clear in a document circulated to all hon. Members, is that all the necessary powers are provided by the current legislative framework in several different Acts of Parliament. I accept that the Government are acting in good faith, but if police authorities had to use all those powers, they would take up so much time and resources that they probably would not have much time to do anything else. It is true that powers are available to deal with one bike in one situation, as long as the police have a handy helicopter, a police car, and police officers trained on off-road bikes, as well as the necessary information to show that the bike belongs to the person riding it, who cannot argue that it belongs to their mate, so it can be taken away. However, if that law is in place, why were 26,000 complaints made in Greater Manchester last year? Greater Manchester police authority is one of the best equipped authorities to deal with the problem, as it has a dedicated unit. It has dealt with the problem in certain places, but it cannot eradicate it, as the law is not effective.
	My hon. Friend the Minister told me in private that ACPO's position formed the basis of the Government's position; if ACPO changed its position, the Government would change theirs. However, after all the discussions, I am not sure whether ACPO's position reflects the Government's or whether the Government's position reflects ACPO's, so it is worth examining ACPO's comments in detail.
	Fortunately, ACPO representatives appeared before the Select Committee on Transport on 7 March, so we had the opportunity to discover what they believed. In written evidence, ACPO said that it was satisfied with the law, and asked what was the point—I urge hon. Members to ponder this—in making something that was unlawful more unlawful. I was not quite sure what that meant and, having examined its representatives, I am not sure that they know what it means. It is a way of saying that ACPO does not want to consider more effective measures to deal with the problem.
	In its written evidence, ACPO qualified its opposition by admitting that a registration scheme could have long-term benefits and could save resources. The Select Committee examined the ACPO representative, Mr. Griffin, in detail, and asked him whether it would be beneficial to do what most hon. Members want, and allow police officers to stop and seize a bike without warning. He accepted that that was right. We then asked whether a registration scheme would be helpful in cases in which the police did not know the owner, and the rider said that the bike was not theirs. He accepted that it probably would be helpful, as that was a problem. We then asked him about registration plates. Police forces have tried to tackle the problem, but it has escalated and intensified, as people using such bikes simply drive off. There is a limited number of off-road-trained police, so those people often get away, as officers are simply not available. We asked Mr. Griffin whether a registration plate would be helpful in preventing chases, as officers could go to someone's home and find out whether they were the bike's registered keeper. If the bike did not have a registration plate, it could be confiscated. He said, "That is true."
	As I suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello), the bikes are not toys. If someone registers their vehicle and pays a sum of money, they have important responsibilities as a keeper, including responsibility for the safety of the machine. We asked whether it would be helpful to make that point when the bike was sold, and we were told in unequivocal terms, "Yes, it would." Although ACPO's headline position is against the Bill, when one looks at the evidence in detail one can see that it accepts that the scheme would work rather well.

Anne Snelgrove: That is possible, although this winter's weather has not been particularly bad. There have been a lot of incidents involving young people out on the streets of Swindon, so I think that the decline was due to our local crackdown.
	I turn to the three reasons why I particularly support the Bill. One important issue is that regulation would mean that there would be information at the point of sale and curbs on irresponsible salesmen and women and on irresponsible parents buying the bikes. That is extremely important. We want to cut the number of such bikes on or off road and to regulate those that come through rigorously.
	Safety is another issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley gave numerous examples of that. At his reception on Monday night, I saw with my own eyes some accidents involving off-road vehicles. I spoke to representatives of his local police, who thought that they had not found one off-road vehicle that was safe. That is shocking. It is important that regulation should ensure that such vehicles are safe on or off the roads. That is what regulation is for.
	A third issue has not been mentioned: the legitimate racing of mini-motorbikes and other uses of off-road vehicles. When I first came across mini-motorbikes, I thought them ridiculous things. People, particularly young men in their 20s, looked stupid riding them. They looked absolutely daft, and I did not know why they wanted to ride them, although that was their choice. The bikes were also causing the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). They were causing trouble in my constituency for those, the elderly in particular, who wanted a quiet lifestyle and to enjoy their gardens. I thought that we should ban the bikes—what was the problem? The council agreed.
	Following discussions with organisations such as Honda, which has a successful factory in Swindon that does not make mini-motorbikes, and the British Motorcyclists Federation, I have realised that there is a legitimate industry in racing mini-motorbikes. The vehicles can cost up to £3,000. I accept that that is a legitimate sport and that we need not ban young people from having fun. If we regulate, ensure that the vehicles that they are riding are safe and provide them with off-road areas so that they do not churn up local parks or other green spaces that other people enjoy, there is a way ahead for those young people.
	I recently visited the Fun-E-Farm, a quad biking track that also accepts mini-motorbikes, in Blunsdon, just outside my constituency. I met parents of young people who rode mini-motorbikes. They were grateful to the organisers for starting the track so that the vehicles could be used safely and legitimately. That is the way ahead. I hope that hon. Members will accept that there is a legitimate way ahead if the proposals for regulation are accepted by the Minister.

Lynda Waltho: I thought that my example was bad enough, but it seems that there is even more extreme behaviour in Stoke-on-Trent, South.
	Residents inform me that the vast majority of mini-moto users in their area race around on their bikes without wearing any kind of safety gear. Albeit that what they are doing is antisocial, there is the potential for horrendous accidents. There have already been some fatalities—so far not in Stourbridge, but it is only a matter of time.
	Bikes can be bought cheaply due to the flood of imports, particularly from the far east. As no registration scheme currently exists, they are not subject to proper safety checks and can be marketed as toys, with the result that they often end up in the hands of children. Norton residents told me that many of the riders being a nuisance on The Broadway were children as young as 10. That can have disastrous consequences, because children are the least well equipped to deal with high-powered engines.
	I welcome the Bill because a compulsory registration scheme would be a common-sense approach to tackling this nuisance. It would approach the problem at the first point of contact between new buyer and bike, ensuring that riders are aware of the responsibility they are taking on from the beginning and alerting parents to the fact that these bikes are not toys but potentially dangerous pieces of machinery. It is important that parents are aware of what their children are buying, or what they are buying for them. I have two sons of 16 and 13 who have asked for mini-motos because they see them as exciting. I explained, as a responsible parent, that their use, particularly in the areas where they would want to go with their friends, is illegal. It is difficult to explain to young people where and when they can or cannot use them.
	A compulsory registration scheme would mean that bikes would be subject to appropriate safety evaluation. Nobody could sensibly argue that rigorous safety checks can be anything but beneficial given that we are dealing with such powerful machines. Furthermore, I support the argument that such a scheme would significantly increase the efficiency of police action, as a clearer system of ownership would make illegal riders more easily identifiable. The person riding a mini-moto will not always own it, but it would establish a better link whereby the police could take action.
	I am aware that powers already exist for police to seize and crush vehicles if they are used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. I completely agreed with those changes, which were a good step forward. However, a registration scheme would make it much easier to identify the offenders. Although some riders may remove their registration plates, there would still be the link with the original buyer, enabling the police to crack down on illegal use. When one is dealing with potentially dangerous vehicles that can reach high speeds, it makes sense that there should be a form of registration to keep track of their ownership, as for cars or motorbikes.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) that there needs to be an improvement in the facilities available to young people who want to use these machines legally. That is an aspect that we need to explore.
	Unfortunately, illegal mini-moto use is an increasingly common and distressing form of antisocial behaviour, and with sales of mini-moto-type vehicles increasing tenfold between 2002 and 2005, it does not look as though the problem will go away without action to encourage responsible use and crack down on individuals who are making a nuisance of themselves in certain areas of my constituency. A registration system for off-road bikes would make a real difference to people in Stourbridge. I accept that the Bill would not be a magic cure-all for all mini-moto nuisance, and there will always be people who flout the law, but used in conjunction with existing police powers, better education of purchasers, parents and users about the dangers and responsibilities of using such bikes, and an improvement in the facilities available to riders, it would be a sensible step in the right direction.

John Mann: Mini-motos do not blight only urban areas and I therefore want to ask where the Tories are. I see no Conservative Back Benchers, I hear no Conservative Back Benchers, yet mini-motos are a big issue in rural areas. We have debated it not only in the context of antisocial behaviour and the various excellent ten-minute Bills that have been mentioned but—at length in the Chamber and in Committee—in the context of off-road bikes and the countryside.
	In the 550 square miles that I represent, the subject is a major issue, which affects, for example, horse riders, ramblers, farmers and people in mining communities. That applies throughout the country. There has almost been a consensus about the logic of registration to allow the police to apprehend people properly and the local community to monitor the problem effectively. In my area, the police are demanding precisely those powers. The absence of Tory Back Benchers is therefore extraordinary. Perhaps they are hiding, waiting for other subjects to be discussed.  [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) prompts me to suggest that they are waiting to rush in to discuss the measure on temporary and agency workers. The Tory Whips should send a clarion call to get them back in here because the subject greatly affects rural communities. Shame on them that they are not here to vote for the Bill. Their failure to do not only that but to come and speak about it should be recorded.
	Not only rural communities but golfers, cricketers and footballers are affected. Clearly, Labour Members are their friends. In my community, it is precisely those unregistered bikes—quad bikes, off-road bikes and mini-motos—that cut up the golf courses, destroy the cricket pitches and damage the football pitches. Those are major issues for people, because those things form a key part of the new, healthier way of living that the Government are rightly promoting.
	I am sure that four Departments—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office—have great concerns and want to ensure that the Minister is making sure that these issues are fully protected. However, another issue has been referred to briefly, but it needs an additional comment. I have done a lot of research into it, to find out how it works. How do hon. Members think that drugs are transported across communities? Do hon. Members think that drug dealers go in registered cars, so that the police, knowing whom to look for, can watch, monitor and apprehend them? Well, the thick ones do, and they get apprehended, but that is not the way in this country that drugs are moved in and out of communities.
	Drugs are moved in and out of communities by depositing them, not usually in people's houses, but in forested areas, so that if the police find them they cannot directly link them to the dealers. Drugs are moved in vehicles that are not registered. A key way in which that is done is by using this kind of vehicle. Therefore, the problem is not one just of antisocial behaviour, but actual crime and the way in which it is committed. So I strongly recommend this Bill and the following Bill to the House, as they deal with key concerns for the country, and they are clearly concerns that only resonate on the Labour Benches.

Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to follow the splendidly brief contribution from the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart), and I entirely endorse his idea of having voluntary areas. Unlike his colleague, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who attacked the Conservative party, his other colleague, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) furiously attacked the Government—clearly not adhering to the respect agenda.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on doing so well in the ballot and on choosing an issue of real concern to so many of our constituents. He is a regular contributor to debates on road transport, and he made another thoughtful contribution this morning.
	We in the Conservative party acknowledge that there is a substantial problem with mini-motorbikes. Noise nuisance can be substantial and highly aggravating, wrecking the peace of a neighbourhood. Mini-moto use intimidates walkers and riders, as the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) said, and in some cases causes real danger to members of the public, as well as to those who ride the mini-motos, which can get up to 40 mph. They can be especially dangerous when they are not properly maintained, and we are fully aware of the tragic case of David Spence, aged four, who was killed in February 2006 after a teenager took him for a ride on a 50 cc mini-motorbike.
	We accept that Government statistics might not fully reveal extent of the problem. Northumbria police received 3,000 complaints about off-road issues in 2005. Manchester has identified it as one of its top five priorities in an antisocial behaviour crackdown. In Reading, 44 per cent. of "It's Your Call" antisocial behaviour reporting line calls related to mini-motos. That clearly reflects the twentyfold increase in the number of mini-motorbikes sold since 2001. If the estimates that about 144,000 of them are now in circulation are accurate, that suggests a sizeable problem. However, the Motorcycle Industry Association believes that up to 300,000 machines might be in circulation, with many imports retailing at prices as low as £100, which suggests a problem of considerable magnitude.
	Funnily enough, perhaps success has caught up with us. Members have cited numbers. The Motorcycle Industry Association has given me figures on imports from China. In 2000, 2,181 units were imported, rocketing to 45,515 in 2003 and an amazing 144,905 in 2005. But in 2006, there was a 58.67 per cent. fall, down to 59,885 units.I wonder whether some of the programmes that local and central Government have undertaken have begun to have some effect.
	Perhaps such vehicles are starting to go out of fashion. Perhaps the illegality surrounding them is getting through to people. Perhaps parents are becoming more aware. Perhaps some of the police crackdowns and the crushing of bikes have had an effect. Perhaps, in fairness, the Home Office's summer campaign in 2006 had an effect. The motor cycle industry, particularly the Auto-Cycle Union, has done good work in highlighting the problem, as have local authorities, the police and other associations.
	Without in any way disparaging the intent of the Bill, or the size of the problem in recent years, we need to examine more closely what the Bill would do. I am concerned that it would catch all off-road motorcycles and quad bikes. It would therefore catch all bike owners, from farmers driving up remote hills in Wales or Yorkshire to feed their sheep, to the racer at Brands Hatch, to me—I must declare an interest—as I own an off-road quad bike that I use at home.

Owen Paterson: Of course it is, but the hon. Lady is confusing the issue of whether the registration will work with the issue of how we address the problem. I do not underestimate the problem at all, and she is right that it is a cost to the public purse. My suggestion, however, is that the funds that would be spent on the registration scheme under the Bill might be better spent in another way.
	Those in the industry are also of that opinion. For instance, the Motorcycle Industry Association says that there has been a major drop
	"in the number of imports, plus enforcement and publicity in 2006 and resulting fall in complaints where action has been taken indicates that targeted law enforcement"—
	of existing law—
	"and publicity has started to have a dramatic effect".
	Yesterday, Craig Carey-Clinch, the spokesman for the Motorcycle Industry Association, told me that the Bill was a "waste of parliamentary time". He said that we should focus on hard-core antisocial elements. The worry is that the Bill as drafted will sweep in large numbers of people who are not a problem, but might not catch those who are causing the problem so graphically described by numerous Members.

Owen Paterson: I think that I made it clear that I have not. I will say for the third time that I come from an extremely rural area. I read the rural press and this issue has not been brought to me with the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has. It appears to me to be a problem of small vehicles sold as toys mainly in urban areas. That is what we should be addressing. That appears to me to be the main problem.
	Parallel to the enforcement of existing law, I would recommend another course and finish on a positive note. I draw attention to the Auto-Cycle Union local authority support unit which argues for turning this social problem into a sporting opportunity. It states that in the 1960s some terrible drownings in gravel pits encouraged swimming pool building. In the 1970s, roller skate parks sprung up to cater for that craze. Then came skateboards and most recently BMX cycle parks. All were first seen as social problems. All were embraced. Provision was delivered and the social problem disappeared. Now we have mini-bikes and off-road cycling. The ACU offers an incredibly cheap solution. The support unit provides advice to local authorities on how to identify the problem, its size and nature. It has a formula for establishing a facility, a network and venues, which can be community owned and run. What is exciting about the idea is that any tarmac area about the size of two tennis courts, which is incredibly cheap to provide, can be temporarily or permanently converted into a legitimate mini-bike venue for very little expense.
	The mechanism that the ACU recommends is extremely cost-effective when contrasted with the sums being spent monthly by local authorities on enforcement. I talked to Dave Luscombe yesterday, who told me that Durham police have set up a recreational mini-bike project using the empty police headquarters car park on Saturdays. All that is needed is an area of tarmac the size of a couple of tennis courts, as I said. There are a couple of car parks in virtually every town that are probably unused at certain times. A few old cones mark off the track. In Durham, the children pay £5 for membership and £2.50 per day. Parents must escort the bikes to the venue and stay all day, and they have since become involved as marshals, turning the sessions into social events. The police work with shops that supply the bikes.
	As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) said, these machines are incredibly dangerous when they are badly maintained. The shops are getting involved—some of them are sponsoring equipment such as helmets and gloves. When these machines are used in an extremely dangerous manner around the streets, no one checks the tyre pressures, the brakes and the accelerator cable. Under the conditions in Durham, those who supply the bikes are closely engaged and the machines are safe. The result has been dramatic.

Owen Paterson: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he will discover that there has been a 97 per cent. reduction in illicit mini-bike activity in areas where those schemes have been set up.
	In conclusion, we entirely agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley that in recent years there has been a problem. However, rather than go to the huge expense of his Bill, catching the vast majority of bikers who cause no problems, we believe strongly that central and local government should work in partnership to enforce the large number of existing laws. They should also encourage and support legitimate recreational use, using free tarmac areas. Passing yet more new laws does not necessarily solve a problem and enforcing existing ones often does.
	I could not support the Bill in its current form but I will recommend to my colleagues on the Conservative Benches that they let the Bill pass to Committee where we will table amendments enabling it better to achieve its very worthy aims.

Robert Flello: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on introducing an extremely good Bill. He has given the House the opportunity to debate a subject that, as we have heard, is a burning issue in our constituencies. I do not intend to detain the House long with my comments, mainly because I too want to support and to speak in the debate on the second Bill before us, I hope, today—that introduced by my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly): the Temporary and Agency Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Bill. I hope that we get to that Bill. It is certainly not my intention to delay the House.
	I am somewhat disappointed that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is not here. Indeed, there do not appear to be any colleagues of his on the Liberal Democrat Benches. At least the Conservatives have two Members on their Front Bench. It is disappointing that the Liberal Democrats do not seem to have fielded anyone else.
	It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking in favour of the Bill. It has not come to my attention that the Liberal Democrats have supported previous antisocial behaviour legislation. It is a pity that he is not present to make his point—and to challenge me if what I have said is incorrect.
	The subject under discussion is of great importance to my constituents. Parks in my constituency should be wonderful green open spaces where young people can play and parents can take their small children to climb on climbing frames and swing on swings, but are not because of the menace of off-road bikes and mini-bikes, which tear through the parks. Other areas of open green space in my constituency that back on to houses, and which are reached by alleyways that lead from the nearby roads, cannot be used because of bikes tearing through them—and not only mini-bikes and off-road bikes, but quad bikes. They go down some very narrow alleyways, causing tremendous risk to anybody who happens to be coming the other way because there is no passing space at all. The speeds at which such bikes tear up the alleyways mean that nobody—particularly an older member of the community or somebody with mobility difficulties—has any chance of getting out of the way.
	It is also worth noting that the bikes cause damage to pavements. I am thinking of one particular walkway where the pavement is cracked and broken, and the paving slabs are upended, because of the weight of the vehicles, which travel over surfaces that are intended to be used by pedestrians; the pavement at the end of that alleyway is cracked and broken, and is itself a danger to passing pedestrians, even when there are not any bikes around.
	My constituency is also lucky enough to have a site of special scientific interest, which on a number of occasions has been churned up by off-road bikes or quad bikes tearing through it. I do not know whether they were being used for off-road activity or for other, illegal, activities.
	The Motor Cycle Industry Association has provided some interesting information and I want to begin looking at that by noting that it has proposed a definition for motorcycles such as mini-motos; it suggests that an accurate phrase would be
	"Motorcycles for Use on Private Property, or MUPP."
	I suggest that anyone who uses MUPPs illegally or antisocially should be termed a "muppet". It would be a term of gentle abuse or reproach to use in respect of some of the idiots who are tearing through our green spaces—they are "muppets" of the worst possible variety.
	As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, the import figures from China make for interesting reading. In respect of mini mopeds of up to 50cc, there has been an interesting trend. Between 2002 and 2003 there has been an incredible increase, from 7,736 to 45,515. There has been another ratcheting up between 2004 and 2005: in 2004, there were 68,295 MUPPs—not all ridden by "muppets", I am sure—whereas in 2005 there were 144,905. It is interesting that there have been such increases. Will the Minister share with us any thoughts that he might have about the reasons for those increases between 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005? The hon. Member for North Shropshire has addressed some of the reasons why MUPPs have started to go out of fashion, and it might be for that reason that their numbers declined in 2006, the last full year for which we have figures. Certainly, MUPPs can, when ridden by "muppets", cause nuisances and problems, and they have steadily increased. That is still a cause for concern.
	The issue of fixing number plates to such vehicles has not been sufficiently addressed by us. If the intention of registration—or a possible offshoot of having vehicles registered—is that the bikes must have a registration plate, the Motor Cycle Industry Association rightly raises concerns about when MUPPs are used in competitive sport. It makes the point that a plastic plate could shatter. Therefore, there might be a constant need throughout a race day to repair and replace number plates if they are plastic. It also raises the point that if the plates were not plastic but metal, what would happen if one of them came off or broke? What would be the potential dangers of that? Off-road motorbikes are dangerous at the best of times, and if they are not used properly they can cause many difficulties. There are injuries even at the most carefully organised and controlled competitive events. If there were metal plates, which can be sharp-edged and might fly off, that could cause greater injuries—even fatalities—and if there were plastic plates, shards could fly off and cause injuries, not only to those taking part but to the many spectators.
	The Motor Cycle Industry Association raises the matter of enforcement as its greatest concern. How do we tackle the hardcore antisocial elements? Such people would view any extra law with cynicism: they might simply dismiss it, and it certainly might not have an impact. I shall return to that issue shortly.
	The comments of the Association of Chief Police Officers have been mentioned, and I will not rehearse them other than to say that it clearly feels that parts of road traffic legislation can be used to address this problem. If the powers exist and can be used, why are they not being used to the extent that they should be? Many Members have said that in certain areas of the country they are being used—and that they are used very well—but that is not the case across the country. ACPO therefore must be asked the following question: what pressure is it putting on its membership to make sure that best practice is spread throughout the country and that the powers are used properly?
	I found the "Respect" document, "Tackling mini-moto misuse: a guide", to be interesting and useful reading, and I wish briefly to go through some of its very important points, while also ensuring that we get on to the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. In the first part of the first section of that document the question of where mini-motos can be ridden legally is asked. That is a good point. As I said earlier in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho), I have seen mini-bikes being used in appalling ways. I have already commented on the man in his mid-20s with the baby perched on the handlebars collecting another older child from school. Sadly, on that occasion I was a passenger in a passing vehicle and was therefore unable to take any action myself. The document asks whether they can be ridden on private land, and the answer is that they can, but with exceptions. We have already heard about the requirement for legal sites, and I will address that shortly.
	In one part of my constituency there is a park that runs behind a number of houses. Young people—and not so young people—tear through that park, causing a nuisance, and that brings the whole area down, not simply in terms of antisocial behaviour in the park but in terms of the knock-on effects. There is noise, so people cannot sit out in their gardens on a nice summer evening. When the weather turns warmer—because of climate change, we seem over recent years to have been blessed, if I can use that word in this context, with some very good summer weather—parents might wish to keep their children's bedroom windows open to let in some fresh air. Of course, if a "muppet" is tearing up and down outside on an off-road bike having no regard whatever for the community, the noise will keep the children awake. That will have a knock-on effect on their performance at school next day, and could give rise to other antisocial behaviour issues. As a result of suchbehaviour, the park becomes a no-go area. Legitimate users of that parkland are deterred from using it, and might take a wide detour to avoid walking through it because idiots are riding their bikes in an antisocial—in many cases, almost criminal—manner. The park therefore becomes a haven for other antisocial—and, indeed, illegal—activity.
	That is not to say that we should roundly condemn everybody who sells mini-motos and other such vehicles. A vendor in Fenton, in my constituency, is taking a very responsible attitude to sales by making sure that the people buying such vehicles are responsible and understand the legislation and where mini-motos can and cannot be ridden legally.
	Section 2 of the guide deals with education and engagement. We need to educate people not just on the use of MUPPs, but on the general use of pavements, parks and roads. Organisations such as the Blurton Dads group, in my constituency, are doing excellent work teaching young people—and their fathers—about riding safely and responsibly.
	Several Members have mentioned the use of legal sites, but sadly, there is an element of nimbyism that we have to be very careful about. A lot of constituents will rightly say, "An excellent site and facilities should be provided for such people. They should be supervised and proper care and control should be provided—but please don't put the site near my house." That is understandable in cases where noise has proved a problem, and it is particularly understandable if such people have been plagued for many years by the nuisance caused by the misuse of off-road vehicles. However, we need to locate such sites in accessible areas, while not putting them so close to people's back yards as to cause a nuisance.
	Of course, that creates all sorts of dilemmas. If a site is located too far away, it simply will not be used. The young people—and the slightly older people—who want to use their mini-motos and MUPPs for recreational purposes will be unable to do so because they cannot travel that far. We have already heard how difficult it can be to get a mini-moto to such a site for those who do not have a small van to load it into. They might have to push it there, and as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, pushing such a vehicle along the road can of itself contravene road traffic legislation. We need to locate such venues sufficiently far away from residents so as not to cause them a problem, but close enough to users to make them accessible. The local authority in my constituency is working hard to find suitable venues. The deputy elected mayor, Councillor Paul Shotton, is doing a lot of valuable work in trying to resolve this problem, as is another constituency colleague, Councillor Terry Doughtey.
	Section 3 of the guide refers to taking action against the misuse of mini-motos and the tools and powers that are available. Reference was made earlier to seizing such vehicles and crushing them, and that might well be the answer in cases where that can be done. Section 87(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which makes it an offence for a person to use a motor vehicle of any class on a road unless they hold a driving licence, would allow for vehicles to be crushed if they are used by unlicensed riders. However, a MUPP that has been seized with the intention of destroying it might well not be the legal property of the person riding it. They might have stolen it, and if they are apprehended, it might emerge that it is not their legal property, which gives rise to the question of whether it can be destroyed.
	Of course, the vehicle might well be that person's property, but even then, other problems arise. Police officers tell me that in some cases the person in question simply goes out and buys another one. Many such vehicles are available and their cost has dropped dramatically, so if the offender's vehicle is seized and crushed, they simply buy another one—or, indeed, steal another one. Whether or not they bought the original vehicle legitimately, they might think, "Well, let's steal one and use that." Having spoken to the police, I get the impression that some offenders are indeed repeat offenders and will constantly steal vehicles to use in an antisocial and criminal manner. Therefore, seizing and destroying vehicles is not always the answer.
	When someone misuses such a vehicle, the police often issue a warning, but many of my constituents are saying, "They have broken the law or antisocial behaviour legislation, so why issue a warning? They have done something that they should not be doing." As we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse; the vehicle in question should be seized there and then. Some councils try to get around issuing warnings, because they might have to go to court and pay legal costs if they are challenged. We should not have to find ways around the legislation; the law should be clear. I hope that the Minister takes particular note of that point and responds to it when he winds up the debate.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. When the Bill is considered in Committee—as I hope it will be—we can discuss that issue further.
	That brings me nicely to uninsured drivers. Whether or not there is a requirement to register such a vehicle, perhaps there should be a requirement that anybody who rides one—be it on road or off road—has some form of insurance. That might more easily solve the problem, in that anyone found using a MUPP would immediately have to prove that they are insured. If they are not, they are running a vehicle without insurance, for which there are penalties. If the vehicle is their own, it could perhaps be seized and destroyed. Hopefully, we can discuss in Committee whether a clause could be added to the Bill requiring that anybody who uses a MUPP should have insurance.
	I have already dealt with the issue of such offenders being caught twice, but I repeat: why should people have to put up with these problems time and again? As we have heard, the perception among a lot of people—including my own constituents—is that the police are taking no action when in fact they do apprehend offenders. However, as soon as the police leave, other offenders come along and start misusing off-road vehicles. As a result, the perception is that this has been happening all day and the police are doing nothing, when in fact, quite the reverse is true.
	I question how much of a deterrent putting endorsement points on future licences would be to a young person using an off-road vehicle in an antisocial or illegal way. They are unlikely to stop and think, "Good grief, what will happen when I apply for my licence? It will be endorsed with points." Such cries are not ringing on the lips of those who are using these bikes.
	I hope that my local council, Stoke-on-Trent city council, will look more closely at the possibility of applying a blanket noise abatement order to areas where off-road bikes are used, so that, if the noise of the bikes is a problem, action can be taken without the rigmarole of warnings and so on.
	I am conscious of the time and intend to bring my remarks to a rapid conclusion. There are several examples of good local initiatives that have been taken to address this issue. The Killingbeck divisional off-road motorcycle unit came to my attention a couple of years ago and involves a team of officers with off-road bikes, which are, I hope, properly registered and insured—

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The noise made by mini-motos tearing around can be very antisocial, perhaps for parents putting their children to bed and having to leave the windows open because it is hot. The noise can also have an intimidating effect on people who are just sitting in their living room trying to watch an episode of their favourite soap. The volume of those unsilenced motor vehicles can be deafening from some distance away and sound as if it is just outside people's front doors. A noise abatement notice can be served under section 79(1)(g) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which applies to
	"noise emitted from premises"—
	and that may apply to a vehicle in the street—
	"so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
	That constitutes a statutory nuisance, and if local authorities are satisfied that such a nuisance has or may occur—that might be a way around the problem—they can serve a noise abatement notice, or NAN, on the person responsible. Although certainly my Nan, God rest her soul, would object to being associated with anything to do with antisocial behaviour. If the area is public property, the council has to take the sometimes tortuous route of ensuring that it obeys the legislation, gets the wording right and puts the notices up. Those notices may be challenged, and the issue may go to court, thus incurring legal costs. There should be a much simpler solution and I am keen that alternatives are explored in Committee.
	I understand that Doncaster metropolitan borough council considered 1,500 complaints about motorcycle nuisance in 2004-05 and served 640 NANs. However, only 45 mini-motos were seized by the environmental health officers, with a further 100 seized by South Yorkshire police. Either the 640 NANs were effective at deterring the problem or they could not be implemented.
	I was talking about the Killingbeck divisional off-road motorcycle unit. Many police forces, such as the Staffordshire police in my area, do not use off-road motorbikes to catch perpetrators because of health and safety issues that affect the officers themselves. Other hon. Members have mentioned the health and safety of the perpetrators, but the health and safety of the officers is also an issue. My understanding—although my local chief constable may be sitting, pen poised, to write to me to correct me—is that the Staffordshire police do not use off-road bikes because of health and safety concerns regarding their officers. It is important that we protect our police officers, but we also need a police force able to use all the powers that are available. Twelve pieces of legislation are available for use on this issue and I hope that the Bill will not be an unlucky 13th.

Robert Flello: I agree that if the police need legislation to address something the House should weigh up and carefully consider all the issues and, if it decides that it is what the police need, it should deliver it to them —[ Interruption. ]
	I am ever conscious of time, and I can hear the murmurings of colleagues—

Paul Farrelly: My hon. Friend makes the point that time is of the essence and he assured us when he stood up that he would be fairly brief. I understand that he also wishes to speak in the second debate about campaigns run by his two trade unions, the T and G and Amicus. Is he aware that he is severely denting the time available—

Meg Hillier: I intend to be brief because, like other hon. Members, I support the second Bill that is on the Order Paper for consideration today. However, I need to detain the House a little to raise some of the important issues for my constituency.
	Although I do not want to detain the House too long, I cannot begin my main remarks without commenting on the remarks of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). I suggest that he go to a Hackney estate to tell people that we should make mini-motos a sporting opportunity, and he can see what reaction he gets. I applaud the work of people such as Ian Levy, the father of a young man murdered in Hackney, who is working to create motorbike workshops for young people as a diversionary tactic, but that is a separate issue that must not be confused with the issues in the Bill.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on introducing the Bill, and my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) and for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) on their work in this area. It is an important issue and an important Bill. If it does nothing else, it will raise the Government's awareness of this nuisance and the inability of the current laws to tackle it. I hope that it gets a fair wind. We know that private Members' Bills often make precarious progress through the House, but from the speeches we have heard the Government can be in no doubt of the importance of the matter to our constituents.
	It is fair to say that Hackney does not have the reputation it deserves and I feel that it is important to redress that every time I speak. I want to highlight the fact that crime in Hackney has dropped overall by 22 per cent. since the neighbourhood police teams were introduced 18 months ago. It is the first London borough to achieve its three-year crime reduction target, and it has done so within 18 months—a significant improvement. However, antisocial behaviour is still raised many times when I am on doorsteps with local councillors and others in the constituency. Neighbourhood policing has done much to help people to tackle antisocial behaviour. When I knock on doors now, I find that people feel that, when they raise such issues, there is an opportunity to work with the police, the council and other members of the community to tackle them.
	That true partnership between the community, the police and the council has made a difference and I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his visit to Hackney, South and Shoreditch, when we walked around the Queensbridge ward with its neighbourhood team—Sergeant Nick Smith and his colleagues—and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner last Friday, so that they could see for themselves the important work that has been done. We have seen substantial reductions in crime, but I shall not say any more about that, given the time.
	Mini-motos are a widespread problem in Hackney, as in other areas. I am heartened to hear that we in Hackney are not alone in experiencing the problem and that they are an issue throughout the country, in rural areas, cities and elsewhere. The figures back up the interest in mini-motos. I know that the hon. Member for North Shropshire believes that the import figures from China demonstrate that the trend might be disappearing. The fact that 144,000 were imported in 2005 and that that figure has dropped to only 60,000 in 2006 does not mean that interest is dropping but only that we have more second-hand and used vehicles on the road. I would not say that the decrease was that big in Hackney, given the anecdotal evidence I have heard as the local MP.
	The Bill raises the important issue of registration. It is interesting that the Government argue against it, because I think that it provides two main benefits. First, it forces owners to stop and think twice before purchasing one of these vehicles. There have been education programmes and so on that have told people that they are dangerous for their children, pointing out the other 12 pieces of legislation, but have they had much impact? We have heard that they have where there has been an attempt at a crackdown, but those laws exist everywhere and there has not been a uniform reduction in the use of these dangerous nuisance vehicles. The cost and effort of registration will make people realise that what they are buying is a vehicle, not a toy.
	Crucially, a registration plate would allow the public to report such vehicles. One of the benefits of working with neighbourhood police teams in Hackney is that the public feel involved. Hackney councillors have brought in residents as street wardens to report what is going on in their area, which makes it much easier for police to identify theft and misuse. Registration also has the advantage of allowing for instant action. Although seizure is an option in some cases now, registration would mean that penalties could take place immediately, which is a real advantage.
	It warrants a moment of my time to mention that the motorcycle industry argues that the 12 existing laws covering the use and abuse of mini-motos send a powerful message to parents. However, the very act of registering will surely make parents think twice, and perhaps the cost will put them off. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has had any discussions about the issue with Treasury Ministers—perhaps he can address that in his remarks. I would have thought that a lot of the discussion about registration concerns its cost. Surely we could make the registration scheme self-financing and I hope that that might be debated if the Bill reaches Committee. Perhaps we could even tax vehicles—this may be controversial for those who use them for sport—to an extent that makes people think about whether it is sensible to buy them in the first place. Perhaps it would be best not to debate that matter now, even though it is important, given the time available. The 12 laws are not doing the job, so we need to consider other approaches, which is why the Bill is important.
	I know that there are genuine users of off-road vehicles, such as the people of Hackney who use their vehicles in the Lea valley area, which is just outside my constituency. There is an argument that registration plates on vehicles being used off road could get damaged and cause a danger, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) said. However, that is not an argument against registration itself. We would need to consider exactly how registration would work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) rightly highlighted the impact on our parks. I will not go over the points that he made, with which I totally agree, but a small problem is created by attempts to tackle the nuisance of bikes in parks by introducing narrow gates to stop people going through on their motor bikes. Those gates are a pain in the neck for people with a buggy, wheelchair or bicycle. We are having to tackle the problem by implementing solutions that cause more difficulties for the legitimate users of our parks and other facilities.
	The nuisance needs to be tackled in Hackney, South and Shoreditch and, as we have heard today, elsewhere throughout the country. The argument that there are 12 existing laws is not an argument against the Bill, but an argument for it, because that legislation is not working, given that we have a problem while it is in place. The Bill would create disincentives to purchase a vehicle in the first place and give those who suffer from this antisocial behaviour more power to ensure that they did not have to live with such a scourge on our society.

Barbara Keeley: When I introduced a ten-minute Bill on this subject on 1 November, I proposed measures very similar to those in the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer). On that occasion, I talked about the extent of the problem, the damage caused to land and property and the people who were distressed by noise and danger, especially the most vulnerable people. I included in that group children with learning difficulties or those on the autistic spectrum, and people with very limited eyesight, all of whom could be distressed by the danger and thus have their lives limited by it. I also talked about injuries and fatalities. However, given that I do not have time, I will not emphasise any of those points, although I would have liked to have done so.
	The police in Greater Manchester are asking for these powers. Despite the fact that our local police are doing an excellent job on crackdowns, which I talked about when I introduced my Bill, despite the effective "stop off-road nuisance" campaign that Greater Manchester police ran throughout last summer and autumn, and despite the excellent publicity given to the campaign by our local paper, the  Manchester Evening News, we still need extra powers to establish a clear system of ownership, to ensure that consumers are protected and to increase the efficiency of police action—although we already have plenty of police action, we can improve its efficiency.
	Considerable political benefits could arise from supporting the Bill. As we have heard, the constituents of many hon. Members have problems of the scale about which I have talked. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) gave us an impressive list of the parts of the country that are most affected—the problem occurs all across the country. There have been petitions and three ten-minute Bills, and two early-day motions on the problem were tabled by Labour Members after the summer recess. If the Bill were passed, it would bring great relief to many thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands. That would help them to feel that the Government were on their side.
	It is not enough to say to Greater Manchester Members that the police have existing powers. Our police tell us that they do not have powers and that they want the Bill. If the Government continue not to support the Bill, our constituents will not understand why.

Stephen Ladyman: I intend to do that very thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, having grasped the opportunity to make that point. Misrepresented is probably too strong a word; colleagues have perhaps not understood my position on the Bill, so let me begin by making it absolutely clear. The Government entirely support the intention behind the Bill. They entirely accept that the use of off-road vehicles in many of our constituencies, including mine, is a great problem: they are a considerable source of antisocial behaviour and we entirely agree that we should crack down on their misuse. We entirely understand the distress of people who have suffered because of the misuse of those vehicles, and we want to deal with the issue.
	We will deal with the issue by making sure that there are powers in place that give the police the authority that they need to deal with it effectively. As has been pointed out by many Members, there are already at least 12 laws that the police can use, and in some parts of the country, they use them extremely effectively. As a consequence, those parts of the country are not requesting any further powers; nor is the Association of Chief Police Officers, because it believes that the powers are in place.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), who introduced the Bill, on coming so high up in the ballot, and on his enthusiasm for the issue. Given the number of raffles at Labour party events, one would think that we would be a bit better at them, but on this occasion, the best that we Labour Members could do was take fifth place. None the less, I welcome his enthusiasm for the Bill.
	At the outset of his remarks, he talked about the choice that he was given, but I gave him another choice, and I want the House to know about it. My problem with the Bill—I will, no doubt, deal with it in depth in the minutes to come—is that, in my analysis, the solution that it proposes would have very little benefit and would not be cost-effective. I agree that it would have some value, in certain cases, but the value would be nugatory, and nowhere near sufficient to justify the cost involved.
	Let me set out the choice that I gave my hon. Friend. If we allowed the Bill to proceed to Committee, it would take considerable resources, effort and time to amend it there, just to ensure an effective registration system that did not cause problems. If we put resources into that, we would come out of Committee with a Bill that still simply provided for a registration system. Do not forget that the primary purpose of the Bill is to create a compulsory registration system, and it is not possible to amend the primary purpose of a Bill in Committee. The Bill would go into Committee providing for a compulsory registration system, and would come out of Committee providing for a compulsory registration system. If a compulsory registration system is not the answer to the problem, then no matter how hard we worked in Committee, we would come out of it with something that would not solve the problem. We would still have to face the fact that we would have to vote against the Bill on Third Reading. The offer that I made to my hon. Friend was—

Stephen Ladyman: I am swivelling because one normally expects to find one's opponents on the Opposition Benches, but they are sadly empty today.
	I understand my hon. Friend's point. One of our Labour colleagues said that ANPR cameras could be used to record the use of such vehicles off road and that the police could act on that, thus saving police time. However, as my hon. Friend said, those cameras are fixed on-road. We would therefore presumably have to set them up off-road to enforce the Bill.
	Do I believe that the police, in areas where they say that resources are stretched and the 12 existing laws cannot be policed, would spread them even more thinly to enforce registration? No, I do not. Do I believe that that would be in our constituents' interests? No, I do not. If the police were enforcing the registration of vehicles, they would not be stopping the antisocial use of bikes by those who were ignoring the law. If limited resources are the reason we need new powers, we had better ensure that they help the police, not steer them away from where we want to be.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley said that existing law is too complex. He appeared to acknowledge that many of the powers that the police need are contained in existing law, but said that its complexity means that too much of their resources are taken up in enforcing it. I therefore ask him why one would want to take away scarce resources from cracking down on antisocial use of bikes and put them into enforcing a registration system. The police, ultimately, would have to enforce the registration system.
	My hon. Friend also asked why the DVLA had a voluntary scheme if a registration system was such a bad idea. We have such a scheme for law-abiding citizens who want to protect their bike from theft and ensure that they get it back if it is stolen. The target market is completely different from the one that my hon. Friend envisages.
	Why should not we have a registration scheme? My answer to that is, in summary, that its costs are high, its benefits are low—perhaps even nugatory—and it would divert police resources from the genuine problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will come to accept that. If the Bill does not go into Committee, I hope that he will also accept that, even though he is not willing to be involved, I intend in good faith to drive forward the work that I mentioned to ensure a genuine solution to the problem.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful for that offer. Ministerial promises are made not on behalf of the individual who holds the post, but on behalf of the Government. The promise to move the matter forward will survive my ministerial career, if it should come to an end before the promise is fulfilled. I hope that that is not the case, although if my hon. Friend's comments about the Prime Minister's view of the Bill are accurate, who knows?
	I should tell the House that my understanding of what the Prime Minister meant when he made those comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley is that he is entirely behind the intention of the Bill. He wants to see the problem dealt with and he is committing the Government to ensuring that it is dealt with, but he does not necessarily believe that this private Member's Bill provides the framework to do so.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, was next to make comments. He rightly identified that one of the key benefits of bringing vehicles within the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is that it is necessary to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of an offence. He is absolutely right: if everyone registered their vehicles and carried their number plates under the new rule and someone saw one of those number plates on a bike that was involved in an offence, they could go to the registered owner of that vehicle and ask them who was driving.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would happily hand in to the police their eight-year-old son who had broken the law, and we could deal with the matter. However, the people whom he is defining are the law abiding—the people who would register and display their number plates and deal with the issue properly anyway. The entire burden of the Bill would fall on people who display plates. Those who break the law and have antisocial tendencies would not obey it, and the benefits for which he hopes would not accrue under the Bill.
	As I said in an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport has had a very long record of campaigning to improve the situation and for a crackdown. She told us about some very disturbing cases in her constituency. I quite understand why she takes the matter so seriously. I see from my notes that she mentioned that some miscreants are wearing scarves and balaclavas to avoid detection. People who are prepared to behave like that would not display a number plate even if we introduced such legislation.
	My hon. Friend questioned whether the powers to confiscate are as strong as they ought to be. If the powers do not exist—I am not completely convinced about that, but I am prepared to promise to consider it in the work that I am promising to do on behalf of the Government—there are much easier ways to fix things than introducing a registration system.
	The hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) mentioned three areas of work: the regulation of information at the point of sale, safety regulations and the deliberate racing of such vehicles, by which I assume she means deliberate racing in unsuitable places. However, I suspect—of course, one would need to take the guidance of Mr. Speaker and the Clerks—that regulations in all those areas would be outside the scope of the Bill, which is about the registration of those vehicles.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The garage that sells me my car has a responsibility to ensure that it is roadworthy and safe for use on the road, but the responsibility to make sure that I have a roadworthy vehicle of merchantable quality does not fall to it under the vehicle excise legislation or under registration legislation; it falls to it under trading standards legislation. That is why we need to do a piece of work across Government to look at all those issues and to come forward with a package of changes that can deal with those problems. The registration system alone will not do it. If we introduce that alone, it will make a nugatory contribution to the safety issue that she has rightly identified.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) mentioned damage to land and property. I will return to that issue in a moment. She focused on unsafe use of those vehicles and children riding on handle bars. However, misuse is not in this Bill. Registration does not deal with misuse. Perhaps we have to do another piece of work to deal with the misuse of those vehicles. That can be part of the work that we take forward.
	I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) did not allow me to intervene, but I understand his concern that we make progress. However, I will deal with his points now, as he requested. He quoted import figures between 2000 and 2005. Imports rose from a bit more than 2,000 to 144,000, but, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) pointed out, my hon. Friend singularly failed to quote the figures for 2006, when imports fell to just under 60,000—a dramatic fall in sales.
	Sales of the vehicles have collapsed, although we do not know why. Perhaps it is because everyone who wants one now has one. It is more likely to do with the fact that the work that the Department of Trade and Industry and trading standards have already done has got over to parents how little legal use can be made of the vehicles and they have simply stopped buying them. The trend might continue. Without doing any of the things we have discussed today, these machines might disappear in a year or two. I certainly hope so. Despite that, I am not advocating that we do nothing. I am advocating that we continue to do this work and do not rely on a further collapse of sales. However, it is a positive sign that they have collapsed so far.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned at great length rural communities. He pointed out again that the Tories have decided not to come today to represent the views of rural communities. There is clearly a difference between the views of the hon. Member for North Shropshire and my hon. Friend about whether these machines are a problem in the rural community. I point out to my hon. Friend that we have all had a communication from the National Farmers Union saying that it does not support the Bill because it perceives that the burden of it would fall on legitimate landowners and farmers, rather than on the people we want to deal with.
	My hon. Friend mentioned some things that I wanted to comment on and which are important: the damage that is done to golf courses and football pitches as a result of the use of those vehicles. That is another reason why the piece of work that needs to be done should be done across Government. It probably needs to include the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because issues about leisure and sporting activities will all have to be taken into account when we come up with a package to solve the problem.
	My hon. Friend is an expert on the drug trade and the damage that drugs do to people. He pointed out that drug users do not travel in registered cars, and that they move their drugs around in unregistered vehicles, including unregistered off-road motor bikes. Would a drug dealer register their off-road motor bike just because we have brought in this Bill? Is he telling me that someone who is committing crimes that could lead to a prison term of tens of years, huge fines and all their property being confiscated, would say, "My goodness, I have to give up the drug trade because I have to register my off-road motorbike now"? That simply would not happen. I entirely accept that drugs are moved in unregistered vehicles and on bikes, but I do not accept that the Bill would make the slightest difference to that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) believes that all the powers that currently exist are being used to their fullest extent. That might be so in some parts of the country, but I am unsure whether it is in all parts of the country. However, if I accept as a hypothesis his argument that they are all being used to the fullest extent, that does not mean that the extra step that we have to take is to have a registration system. It does not mean that what we need is a single new power. We might need new powers across the board—trading standards powers, perhaps, or transport powers, or Home Office powers or antisocial behaviour powers. We might need a registration system, but we do not know that yet, and I certainly do not accept that it is a given that a registration system is the answer.
	I do not always agree with the hon. Member for North Shropshire, but I agreed with the main thrust of his argument on this occasion—the analysis at least, if not the prognosis. He mentioned all the points that I have made. For instance, he asked why we would want to have a prescriptive system, the burden of which would fall mostly on law-abiding people. It would be a very expensive system with lots of regulations imposed on people, and most of the burdens of it would fall on law-abiding people, rather than on the people whom we want to focus on.
	Unfortunately however, the hon. Gentleman moved on from analysis to inaccurate prognosis when he said, "Well, we should let this Bill pass into Committee and try to amend it there." Frankly, he and I both know that that was a bit of politics, as he wants to sound as though he is on the side of the people who are suffering as a result of these machines. I am on the side of the people who are suffering as a result of these machines, but to suggest to them a solution that will not take us any further forward will not do them any good. The simple fact is that if we go into Committee with a Bill whose primary purpose is a registration scheme, we shall have to come out of Committee with a Bill whose primary purpose is a registration scheme, and all of the steps that the hon. Gentleman has identified as potentially reasonable steps to take will not be in the Bill, while the one measure that he has identified as a burden will be in the Bill. Therefore, he and I will have to team up to defeat it on Third Reading, instead of doing the obvious thing now, which is to say, "Let's drop it and do the piece of work that really needs to be done."
	The hon. Gentleman detailed the 12 laws that currently exist, and he pointed to certain areas of the country where things are working extremely well—in Coventry, for example, and he also mentioned Havering and Islington. I am aware of the Coventry experience. It is very positive; it appears that the existing powers are entirely adequate for purpose. We would feed that piece of evidence into the system, and if it turned out that Manchester police and others looked at that experience and said, "Yes, we've been doing things wrong; we should do things the Coventry way, and then we will have no more problems", we would have the answer that we want. On the other hand, if they got together and identified that further changes to the law were needed, we could address that and do what is required to solve the problem.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) made a number of useful points in his thoughtful speech. I am sorry that he was intervened on so much by Members who were getting impatient with him. That was a shame. I remember the late Mr. Forth telling us on many occasions that the primary purpose of this Chamber is to scrutinise legislation and that we must do that carefully. Therefore, my hon. Friend was right to have done that properly. He asked: if the powers exist, why are they not used? I would ask: if the police are resource-constrained, why would they want to spread their resources even more thinly to enforce a register?
	My hon. Friend also talked about legal sites. That is an interesting issue, and he is right that nimbyism is a key point. Everybody says, "Yes, let's have a legal site", but when it turns out that the legal site is to be near them people complain. That is absolutely right and this is a real problem, which is why local councils would have to be involved in identifying suitable sites. The other problem is that these vehicles have to be able to get to such sites without using a road, because, as we have heard, they cannot go on roads; the vast majority of them are not road-legal or road-safe. They are certainly not licensed or insured for use on a road.
	Given that these vehicles cannot be used on a road, how would people get to these sites? It would be down to mum and dad to put the vehicle in the boot of the car and take it to the legal site, where it can be properly used. The likelihood is that people with the sort of mum and dad who take that level of interest and supervise them in that way will be law-abiding bike owners, rather than those who ignore the law.
	My hon. Friend also asked why these vehicles should not be insured, and that is a good question that the House should debate. There might be an argument for requiring that they be insured. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) pointed out that, because these bikes are not insured, the health service gets no compensation when people have accidents. That issue has to be addressed, but the fact is that nothing in the Bill requires that these bikes be insured, so even if we went ahead with it, the health service would still get no benefit from it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South also mentioned health and safety, and as I said earlier, that is a key issue. How do we prevent the use of these vehicles if the kid just decides to scarper? I do not believe that the sort of kid who would scarper when a policeman asked them to stop would have a number plate on their bike anyway. The Bill does not provide the police with advice on the best and safest way of apprehending these vehicles, and we do need to deal with that issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said that her constituents would not see this activity as a sport, and I agree that they probably would not. For many of them, it is just an unregulated nuisance that is not done in a proper place. However, the point is that for some people it is a sport, and I am sure that it is a lot of fun, but it does have to be done in the right place at the right time with the right controls. It is those who want to do it in the right place at the right time with the right controls who would be caught by this legislation; those who do not would ignore this law, just as they have ignored the other 12.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) said—and repeated the point in interventions—that Manchester police have been asking for these powers, have been at the forefront of this campaign and have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley in introducing the Bill. As I said, they are not offering to pay for enforcing such a measure or to police its enforcement, but the offer that I have made to them and to everybody else is: let them make the case that this change would have a positive cost-benefit ratio; then, the Government can do this work. However, I doubt whether that case can be made within the framework of a private Member's Bill, and in my view they have not made their case so far.
	Let me reiterate that the Government welcome this opportunity to debate the misuse of vehicles designed for off-road use, and we do want to work out how best to tackle this problem. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley for at least stimulating the debate and for engaging in the issue. As I said, I fully support the intentions behind the Bill, which are doubtless supported by all Members of the House. The irresponsible use of these vehicles is a real and serious problem. I am only too aware from my own area of the serious distress caused by the noise, environmental damage and safety problems associated with the irresponsible use of these vehicles. They have become popular as gifts for children and sometimes as fun vehicles for adults. We should remember that when used responsibly, these vehicles can give a great deal of harmless pleasure. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in principle with small motorcycles designed for off-road use, especially when used under supervision on private property, with the landowner's permission and with appropriate safety precautions. Many young people use their vehicles responsibly in that way and few of us, if any, would have a problem with that.
	However, widespread concern remains about the irresponsible misuse of such vehicles, which can be dangerous to the rider and others and can cause serious noise problems and other nuisances. There has been in recent years something of a craze for these vehicles, sustained by a flood of imports, often available at remarkably low prices. The majority of the products are produced in China by general manufacturers that are more used to turning out toys and other cheap mechanical goods, not by mainstream motorcycle manufacturers. I have heard of their being offered for sale for as little as £40, and some have even been given away for nothing as bonus items in mobile phone contracts.
	Very few mini-motos are sold through established or experienced motorcycle dealer networks. More usually, they are sold by newly established retailers, often with little experience. As I pointed out to the Transport Committee when I appeared before it on this subject, in my constituency they were sold until recently by second-hand washing machine shops as a sideline. I doubt whether such shops would engage positively with a registration process.
	Unfortunately, mini-motos have often been marketed by retailers irresponsibly. As one of my hon. Friends mentioned, one retailer sells the products through a slick website, annoyingtheneighbours.co.uk. I am not sure that I should give that company any publicity by mentioning it, but it gives some indication of the attitude to society taken by some people involved in the trade. Many users of mini-motos seem to share that attitude. They often seem to revel in their bad behaviour and the annoyance that they cause. That attitude can appear very intimidating to the wider community, helping to contribute to feelings of social isolation and helplessness. The House has heard examples today of the problems that misuse of the vehicles can cause. I sympathise deeply with everyone whose life is blighted by this menace. It is a major problem of antisocial behaviour.
	We also know, as several hon. Members have said today, that there are safety concerns about some of the products, especially those at the cheaper end of the market. Indeed, because the vehicles are so cheap, some users probably take additional risks with them. After all, if they break their mini-moto through irresponsible use, they can easily and painlessly get another one. However, if they break their legs, backs or skulls, it is not so easy or painless. As we have heard, some young lives have tragically been lost. Other safety problems arise from the poor quality construction that accompanies the low prices. The many safety faults reported include sharp edges on fairings and windshields, inadequate guards on chains and sprockets, and poor welding.
	This is a large problem. The briefing sheet for the Bill produced by the Motor Cycle Industry Association, the MCI, contains an estimate that no fewer than 145,000 were imported from China in 2005 at the height of the craze. We can assume, therefore, that there are at least 250,000 mini-motos in the country. However, the MCI has also estimated that imports collapsed in 2006 to only 60,000. If that is a lasting and confirmed trend, it may be a sign that the mini-moto craze is passing, as other crazes have passed before. It may also be partly due to tougher action by the Government, local authorities and the police, and I shall talk about some of those efforts later.
	The Bill seeks to address this serious and widespread problem— [ Interruption. ] I can hear that my hon. Friends are shaking with anticipation and enthusiasm for my continued analysis of the problem. I can give them the encouragement that they seek: I have plenty more to say on this important subject. The Bill seeks to address this serious and widespread problem by bringing a range of vehicles designed for use off the public highway within the scope of the existing mandatory vehicle registration system for road-going vehicles. It also seeks to address the problems identified by some police forces in using their existing powers to stop and seize vehicles that are being misused.
	As I will explain, although the intentions behind the proposals are good and although the Government share them, we cannot support the core proposal for mandatory registration of off-road vehicles under the existing vehicle registration scheme. During my speech, I will set out why we think that alternative means of tackling the problem are more likely to deliver the results that we all want.
	First, I will explain the current legal position and the powers that are available to deal with the misuse of the vehicles. The legislation governing the registration and licensing of motor vehicles in the UK is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, as amended. The Act was designed to promote an effective and safe road transport system. It was never intended to regulate off-road leisure activities. In the Government's view, the Act is not well suited to the proposed new task.

Stephen Ladyman: I have not explained my arguments yet. I am sure that when my hon. Friend has heard them in great detail, he will certainly want to encourage his colleagues not to oppose the Government. Explaining my arguments in detail will require me to continue for a little longer and him to be a little more patient. If it is any consolation, the House does not sit till 4 o'clock, so he ought to be on his way home well before then.
	The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act imposes registration requirements only on keepers of vehicles used on the public roads. For these purposes, a public road means a road maintained at the public expense. The definition of a public road includes footways, grass verges and ground adjoining the public carriageway. Any mechanically propelled vehicle that is kept or used on a public road must comply with the registration requirements. Drivers of those vehicles must also comply with the relevant licensing requirements in order to use those vehicles legally on the public road.
	The registration and licensing process plays an important part in identifying vehicles and their keepers for the effective enforcement of the rules of the road and vehicle safety requirements. It also enables the collection of vehicle excise duty. Every vehicle used on a public road in Great Britain must be licensed and registered. If a vehicle is kept or used on a public road, it must display a valid tax disc at all times. The only exception is that a vehicle may be driven, untaxed, to and from a testing station for a pre-arranged test, as long as the vehicle is insured.
	On the issuing of a first licence, a vehicle is registered. The process of registration enables the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to provide each vehicle with a unique registration mark and to issue a registration certificate. Those requirements do not apply to vehicles used only off road. Any vehicles used on the public road must have relevant type approval and comply with all road traffic law requirements. These include: approved construction standards, lights, indicators, insurance, MOT testing and so forth, as well as registration and road tax. A few mini-motos achieve those standards, but the vast majority do not and are thus effectively banned from road use.
	The law governing the registration and construction of vehicles and the licensing of drivers applies to vehicles used or kept on the public roads, but the requirements do not apply to vehicles used off road. However, other laws apply to vehicles off road. During 2006, the European Commission gave the opinion that such vehicles were within the scope of the machinery directive and that certain provisions of the general product safety directive would also apply. In addition, the Commission noted that such products cannot be considered as toys because the toy directive specifically excludes any items powered by internal combustion. The machinery directive is a technical regulation harmonised across the European Union with the intent to ensure that only safe products can be marketed and used. In the UK the legislation is the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992, which cover the essential health and safety regulations of products within their scope. It is unlawful to supply unsafe products within the EU, and where appropriate, a wide variety of measures can used against unsafe mini-motos or other products.
	Trading standards departments of local government authorities have the responsibility for enforcing consumer safety legislation. They have a wide range of enforcement powers to tackle the problem, which include withdrawal notices, forfeiture orders and criminal prosecution. They also ensure that enforcement activities are targeted only against unsafe products, leaving legitimate traders unaffected. In the second half of 2006, the European Commission attempted to establish the extent of the problem throughout the EU. Each member state was asked to report on market surveillance measures taken on mini-motos. We await the Commission's assessment and conclusions, but one thing that was apparent in the UK's response to the Commission's request was the large amount of work that various trading standards departments throughout the country have been doing to address the problem.
	One of the steps the Department of Trade and Industry has taken to address concerns about mini-motos involved writing to all known importers of these vehicles to remind them of the law in place against unsafe products and the consequences—

Paul Farrelly: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	On my 45th birthday, I am privileged to introduce the Bill and I thank my 11 Labour sponsors, who represent our nations and regions, as well as many trade unions that have long campaigned on behalf of thousands of vulnerable agency and temporary workers. I thank in particular all the unions that support the campaign, including the Transport and General Workers Union, Amicus, the Communication Workers Union, the GMB, Unison, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and other unions such as Unity, which is my local community union for north Staffordshire, as well as the TUC and TULO, the trade union and Labour party liaison organisation that does a great deal of valuable work for the Labour party.
	I thank, too, all my colleagues and other hon. Members who have given up not just a valuable Friday but a one-line Whip Thursday and important constituency engagements to vote for the closure motion, thus allowing this important issue to be aired. If they had not done so, it would not have received a billing in the House today. Most of all, however, I thank the 50 or so agency workers who came to Parliament this week to lobby their MPs and put their heads bravely above the parapet to tell their stories and speak about the discrimination that they and their families have suffered.
	For example, Jane was employed by an agency to drive a street sweeper for Salford council. For three years, she worked for £5.75 an hour, which is 30 per less than the rate for a permanent employee doing the same job, but she was recently sacked by telephone, without any warning or recourse. Steve has worked for nine years at a call centre run by Manpower for British Telecom in Scotland on half the pay, with less holiday and no prospects of promotion or job security, so he finds it difficult to secure a mortgage for his family. Bartek from Poland was recruited by an agency to work for a Woolworths distribution centre near Manchester and Wigan. He was promised decent pay, accommodation and working conditions but, like many other migrants, he found himself badly paid, discriminated against, sharing a small room with others and subject to unreasonable charges that the agency deducted from his pay. Those workers are subject to tensions, because fellow UK workers fear, understandably, that they and their families will be undercut by such employment practices.

Paul Farrelly: I thank my hon. Friend for confirming that the Government are committed to pressing ahead with UK legislation, which the Bill is intended to given them the opportunity to do, while the directive is stalled in Europe. As for the qualifying period, I shall come to matters of detail shortly. Those matters can equally be discussed in Committee and are no reason for opposing Second Reading.
	At Warwick, the Government committed themselves to addressing discrimination against agency workers by backing, as my hon. Friends said, the principles of a European directive on the issue and making early progress on it. Sadly, the directive has been at an impasse since 2002, in part because of the objections of the UK and other countries.

Paul Farrelly: Indeed. The situation has left us with a permanent two-tier work force.
	I thank the Minister for confirming at this week's meeting that, in line with commitments made at Warwick, the UK will look at domestic legislation, which is what the Bill seeks to achieve. It is difficult to understand the hostility of the Department of Trade and Industry and its officials to the Bill.
	To dispel another myth, this Bill tracks the principles of the directive nigh on word for word. It defines basic working and employment conditions, which are contained in article 3 of the draft directive. Clause 5 replicates the wording of the directive with one clarification, which is that pay should include an entitlement to sick pay. This week, we heard, through the lobby, from Maeve, an agency worker in Blackburn who has worked for BT through Manpower for the past two years. She told us that it was a them-and-us situation between agency and permanent employees—the haves and the have-nots. Maeve became very ill with pneumonia, but she could only afford to take 10 days off, because after two years of employment, she had no entitlement to sick pay. That is the reality for many workers in our economy today.
	Why does the DTI object so strongly to the Bill? That is a very good question, and this is what we have heard from the Minister this week and again today. The DTI objects to agency workers qualifying for equal rights from day one. That has been one of the main issues stalling the directive. If the Government want to negotiate a qualifying period of six weeks, like the Commission, or nine months, which is their latest condition, then they should do it in Committee. If they have signed up to the principles behind the Bill and the directive, there is no reason to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. Any Whip, as the Minister formerly was, would tell any recalcitrant Back Bencher that they can argue about the detail in Committee.

Owen Paterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on doing well in the ballot; as a birthday present to him, I shall be extremely brief. We all want to hear what the Minister has to say.
	It is important that we get the balance right between protecting employees and providing employment. We support the Government's intention to address bad practices that affect agency workers, but this Bill contains provisions that would change the principles of existing employment and contract law. The effect of those changes would, I believe, be to the significant detriment of job creation in our country.
	Contracts with temporary workers are formed under specific circumstances for specific reasons. We should be cautious about allowing the Government to interfere with the ability of employers and employees to contract in such circumstances. Limiting the ability of employers to take on employees on a flexible or temporary basis has the potential to stifle business. It would also restrict opportunities for those who can work only on a temporary basis. Despite the Government's commitment to introducing measures to ease the administrative burden on agencies, the Bill contains a number of provisions that would increase the administrative burden on any business wishing to employ someone on a temporary basis.
	Obviously, that would have a serious impact on businesses that by their nature rely on being able to employ workers on a temporary and flexible basis. Businesses with seasonal fluctuations, or those that rely on market demand to decide staffing levels, are heavily dependent on being able to staff their businesses efficiently through temporary or agency workers. There seems to be a risk that the more restrictions that are placed on such contracts, the more difficult it will be for agencies to maintain the fluidity of supply so crucial in that area of employment.
	There is also the risk of a knock-on effect by which the increased liability and administrative burden placed on businesses by the Bill would force employers to stop taking on agency workers. That would massively restrict the options open to those able to work only on a temporary basis—for example, students or those looking after young children.
	It is necessary to ensure that we achieve a proper balance between the rights of the employer and the employee, and we are currently considering the whole policy area of employment rights with a view to coming up with proposals that will get the balance right. This Bill, however, is not the answer.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The point that I was making when my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) intervened on me was about where we are within Europe. That addresses the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has been making. Notwithstanding that we and officials have been trying to ensure that we make progress in Brussels this week, that is naturally a matter for the Commission and the German presidency. I understand that the Portuguese, who will assume the presidency in July this year, are interested in moving forward, but I know from my limited time as Employment Relations Minister that European negotiations can be slow.
	The UK presidency, the Austrians and the Finns clearly worked very hard on the working time directive, but there are additional complexities as a result of now having 27 member states. The Commission's view on the working time directive was that, after the European Court of Justice judgment on SIMAP and Jaegar, some 23 of the 25 states were not in compliance with it. As a result, the agency workers directive has suffered because of the time and effort in trying to get a deal and an understanding on the working time directive.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record what the Government have done, and are about to do, on the question of temporary and agency workers, and the background to our position vis-à-vis the Bill.
	We recently published our consultation document, of which Members will be aware, entitled, "Consultation on measures to protect vulnerable agency workers". The issue of the openness of that consultation has been raised. The documents states, at page 24, section E:
	"The Government considers it has identified the key abuses requiring action in this document. However, where respondents can identify further measures—legislative or otherwise...we will consider addressing those as well when we take this consultation forward."
	It also lists details and specifics as to how we want to do that.
	We are also aware that the TUC is establishing a commission on vulnerable employment, which will complement and support the Government's determination to ensure that those who are vulnerable get a fair deal. Links have been established, and the various worthy individuals who have agreed to sit on that commission will be able to help us formulate legislation.
	Mrs. Dunwoody rose  in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put,  but Mr. Deputy Speaker  withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way of recording in  Hansard that dozens of Labour Members came today to support the Bill, that we decided not to stand to make a speech to make sure that it had a reasonable chance of getting a Second Reading, and that we are extremely dismayed and ashamed of the fact that our Front Bench has not acceded to the request of so many—

Daniel Kawczynski: I totally concur. It is my understanding that Conservative party policy is to listen to local communities, and I very much hope that the Minister and the Government will do likewise.
	Shrewsbury does not have the links to other areas that London has. We do not have a tube system in Shrewsbury. We do not have high-speed rail links to nearby airports. We have a relatively poor train service, which does not run very well, and poor connections. We do not even have a direct rail link to London. We are one of only a few county towns in England without a direct rail link to London, and although I am working very hard to try to secure that link for Shrewsbury we now hear that Arriva and Virgin Trains are trying to block it. We do not have the alternatives that London has in respect of encouraging movement into and out of Shrewsbury, whether for business or tourism. That is why my constituents rely on the motor car so much more than Londoners do; the alternatives simply do not exist.
	We will, in effect, be guinea pigs, because we are one of only 10 areas selected in England. The problem with being a guinea pig and having this measure tested on us is that in the short and medium term there will be huge fiscal downsides for my community. Business will be driven away. Many companies have said to me that they will go to Telford, a big modern town to the east of us, nearer to Staffordshire. The Government are already subsidising Telford massively. It receives more than £80 per household more from the local government settlement scheme than my community receives for every household. By taking this step, the Government will be helping Telford even more to the detriment of my constituency. Many people come to Shrewsbury from Wales—they come from mid-Wales and all over Herefordshire. That trade will simply go to Telford, rather than come to our historic county town.
	One of our most prestigious employers in the town centre is a company that has been there for hundreds of years, a major wine merchant called Tanners. I recently met the owner, Mr. James Tanner, at his central Shrewsbury site. He told me unequivocally that he will leave Shrewsbury—that he will move away from that community—if congestion charging is introduced. I have also met Shrewsbury Business Chamber. I spoke to a leading member of that august body, Graham Galliers. He believes that congestion charging will devastate business in the town.
	Over the past few weeks, I have met the owners of many small shops in the town centre who are very worried. I use shops in Shrewsbury all the time—dry cleaners, hairdressers, newsagents, cafes, clothes shops. They are small businesses, set up in the town centre by entrepreneurial, hard-working people. All of them are extremely worried about the prospects for their businesses if congestion charging is imposed on our community.
	In preparation for the debate, I also spoke to the managing director of one of our leading hotels, Mr. Michael Matthews, who runs the Prince Rupert hotel. He said that congestion charging will have a devastating impact on tourism in Shrewsbury. His hotel is in the town centre, and he often says to people who stay there, "We are very pleased to have you, but, out of interest, why have you come to stay in Shrewsbury for two or three days?" Many people reply, "Actually, we were passing through Shrewsbury and we thought we'd stop and have a look." As it is such a beautiful town, they always then think, "Right—we'll come back another time for a longer holiday." That is how Shrewsbury gets a lot of its tourist trade: people passing through, seeing how beautiful the town is and coming back. Mr. Matthews said to me unequivocally, "These people are not going to come into Shrewsbury, stop for a few hours to have a look and come back again if they know that there is congestion charging." We will lose a lot of trade because people will be put off. They will not pay the congestion charge merely to have a quick look at the town with a view to visiting it in future.
	I have spoken a great deal about business and tourism, but there is another issue that I want to point out to the Minister. Many of the senior citizens and people with mobility problems who come to see me point out that Shrewsbury is a very hilly town. Anyone who drives on Shrewsbury's roads will see that it is not like a pancake. It is a very steep, historic town, and people with mobility problems will have difficulty in getting into the town centre if they do not have use of a motor car. If we introduce congestion charging, we will make life more difficult for senior citizens and people with mobility problems.
	Congestion charging will impact hardest on the poorest in society. It is a regressive tax that will hit the lowest earners—people who work in the town centre such as cleaners, and waiters and waitresses. It is the people who do the really important jobs in the town centre who will be hit hardest, by being charged simply to go into their own town.
	I feel so passionately about this issue that I have started an online petition. A gentleman from Telford—he is not a constituent of mine—put a petition with 1.8 million signatures on the Prime Minister's No. 10 website, so I took a leaf out of his book and put my own petition on my parliamentary website. So strongly do I feel about this issue that I will write to every single constituent in Shrewsbury asking them to express their views to me by logging on to my parliamentary website, and to join our campaign. We are trying to gather together 20,000 signatures to present to the Minister, to show how strongly people in Shrewsbury oppose congestion charging.
	I have been informed by the Minister's office that he is willing to discuss this issue with me and that he has kindly agreed to meet me in Shrewsbury on 25 April. I hope that his office has told him that.

Stephen Ladyman: Those factors will be considered should any such scheme be put to us. At this stage, we have seen no business case for such a scheme. Transport for London may or may not be thinking about it. It will be for TFL and the Mayor to consult local people and to see whether they are interested in the potential benefits that such a scheme could offer. It will then make a bid for TIF funding, in just the same way as any other local authority would, and we will all have our say then. However, we should wait until we see some proposals before we panic too much about them.
	I was interested in hearing about the transport problems of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and, as he said, I intend to visit Shrewsbury next month. I look forward to that and I hope to meet local politicians, including him and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who is in his place on the Front Bench, to hear from them directly what they think about the scheme. The scheme is not being imposed by me. I am coming to hear about it, but it is for the local council and people to decide whether road charging might be part of the solution to their problems and to bring a scheme forward. I am simply making a private visit to meet politicians, both local authority and national, to hear for myself about their ideas.
	Over the past few weeks, the press have given a lot of coverage to road pricing. Much of it has been misinformed, including the rather silly story in  The Times this morning. I encourage anybody who is interested in that story to read the speech that I gave. They will find little similarity between my speech and that article. I emphasise again, as I emphasised all through that speech, that no system has been designed and that there are various ways in which we could design systems that protect people's privacy. None of them has been chosen yet. I encourage people before making up their minds to look at the facts about road pricing that we are presenting on the Department for Transport website.
	Sadly, the debate has often been reduced to simplistic arguments. As we take the public debate forward, we must look at the facts and understand the choices that lie ahead. I encourage the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham to be open-minded. I know that he is opposed to the idea at the moment, but if he is open-minded and it turns out that the arguments that he put forward today are justified, there will not be a bid from Shrewsbury. On the other hand, if he is open-minded and the business case is developed and it looks like there might be something in it, it is in the interests of him and his constituents to engage in that debate.